Inspector Fraser v Karabelas (No 2) [2011] NSWIRComm 153

Inspector Fraser v Karabelas (No 2) [2011] NSWIRComm 153

The offences were serious, aggravated occupational health and safety breaches committed in the context of a prior similar conviction, requiring penalties reflecting their objective seriousness. Although Mr Karabelas established that he faced some financial difficulties, his evidence was deficient and did not establish the extent of those difficulties or incapacity to pay. Applying s 6 of the Fines Act 1996, the Court allowed only a modest reduction and imposed increased fines with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Sentence; Occupational Health and Safety Prosecution / Following Appeal Upheld as to Inadequacy of Penalties; Further Written Evidence and Submissions on Respondent's Capacity to Pay Increased Fines
Outcome
Defendant convicted on each of three matters and fined; prosecutor awarded costs as agreed or ordered.
Legal Topics
['capacity to Pay Fines' 'inadequacy of Penalties' 'totality Principle' 'objective Seriousness of Occupational Health and Safety Offences' 'moiety' 'costs']
['occupational Health and Safety' 'criminal Sentencing' 'fines and Penalties'] ['capacity to Pay Fines' 'inadequacy of Penalties' 'totality Principle' 'objective Seriousness of Occupational Health and Safety Offences' 'moiety' 'costs']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Sentence; Occupational Health and Safety Prosecution / Following Appeal Upheld as to Inadequacy of Penalties; Further Written Evidence and Submissions on Respondent's Capacity to Pay Increased Fines

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What penalties should be imposed after the Full Court held the original penalties for three occupational health and safety offences were inadequate.' "Whether and to what extent the respondent's asserted financial circumstances justified reducing the fines under s 6 of the Fines Act 1996." 'Whether the respondent had provided sufficient evidence to establish incapacity to pay increased fines.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offences were serious, aggravated occupational health and safety breaches committed in the context of a prior similar conviction, requiring penalties reflecting their objective seriousness. Although Mr Karabelas established that he faced some financial difficulties, his evidence was deficient and did not establish the extent of those difficulties or incapacity to pay. Applying s 6 of the Fines Act 1996, the Court allowed only a modest reduction and imposed increased fines with costs.

Court Disposition

Defendant convicted on each of three matters and fined; prosecutor awarded costs as agreed or ordered.

Orders

  • ["In Matter No IRC 1090 of 2008, Peter Karabelas is convicted of the offence as particularised and fined $7000, with half that amount to be paid to the prosecutor by way of moiety; he is to pay the prosecutor's costs in a sum as agreed or, failing agreement, as ordered by the Court." "In Matter No IRC 1091 of 2008,...